Bloomberg's critics hate the idea of the government intervening in their choice of beverage, and I can't say I disagree. I love me some soda. I have drunk copious amounts of Coke over the years.
So no, I do not want the gov't telling me what I can and cannot imbibe.
But, on the other hand, I wouldn't mind paying more. Which is to say, I can see parallels to what happened with cigarettes. As more and more information came to light, and it was determined that cigarettes are truly bad for you, with massive economic costs, the gov't got involved. Cigarette taxes have undoubtedly reduced the number of people smoking, and I think most people would agree that's a good thing.
Could the same situation be unfolding with sugary drinks? More and more information is coming to light about the negative health and economic consequences of so much sugar. I have to wonder. If the gov't knows something is causing widespread health problems, and the cost of dealing with those health problems is straining the economy, shouldn't something be done?
People will never allow the gov't to ban sugary drinks outright, but they may be willing to adopt the cigarette model. Taxes on sugary drinks could reduce the amount of sugar people put into their bodies, without eliminating the choice to do so.
I'm conflicted on this, but I have a feeling Bloomberg's proposal is just the beginning.
How 'bout you? Are you on board with Bloomberg? Should the gov't do something about all the sugary drinks? Or should the gov't get its damn hands off our soda?